K. Narayana Kurup, J.

Respondents 5 and 6 in the Original Petition who were the Manager and Headmaster respectively of St. Thomas U.P. School, Vakayar are the appellants. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing Ext. P4 and declaring that the appellants/respondents 5 and 6 in the O.P are not entitled to the protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India and holding that the first petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment as Headmistress in accordance with her seniority and qualification in the vacancy which arose on 1.7.1988. In this appeal the challenge is directed only against the finding of the learned Single Judge on the question of the minority status of the 5th respondent's educational institution. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:

2. Petitioners/ respondents 5 and 6 in this appeal are the two senior most teachers in the first appellant's school. The aforesaid school was originally started by one P.J. Thomas who subsequently sold the school to Rt Rev. Benedict Mar Gregorious, Arch Bishop of Thiruvananthapuram (Corporate Manager, MSC Schools, Pattom). The first appellant manager of the school requested to treat the school as a separate unit and the Corporate Manager also agreed to treat the school as a separate unit. Thus, the Director of Public Instruction, the second respondent in this appeal passed Ext P1 order by which sanction was accorded to treat the teachers of the school of the first appellant who were in service on the date of transfer as a separate unit as per R.36(A) of Chap. XIV-A K.E.R. from the date of transfer of management. A vacancy of Headmaster arose in the school on 1.7.1988. The 5th respondent first petitioner being the senior most teacher in the school staked a claim to be appointed as Headmistress in accordance with her seniority. But the first appellant appointed the second appellant who was junior to the petitioners. The objection of the first peti-tioner/5th respondent against the appointment of the second appellant was rejected and the 4th respondent Asst. Educational Officer approved the appointment of the second appellant as Headmaster. The matter was taken up revision before the first respondent Commissioner and Secretary to Government, General Education Department who as per Ext. P4 rejected the revision petition and confirmed the approval of appointment of the second appellant. Ext. P4 was challenged in the Original Petition contending inter-alia that the first appellant manager has no right to appoint the Headmaster at his whim and fancy against the mandate contained in R.44 of Chap. XIV-A KER and that the management is not entitled to the protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India in administering the school and therefore the ordinary rule of seniority need ro be followed in the matter of appointment Of Headmaster. A counter affidavit was filed by the appellants justifying the appointment of the second appellant "based on the minority right and taking into account the educational excellence, discipline, etc." A learned Single Judge on a consideration of the rival contentions, allowed the Original Petition in the manner indicated above and hence this appeal.

3. At the hearing stage, learned counsel for the appellants confined his argument to the minority status of the school managed by the first appellant. According to learned counsel, the school in question managed by the first appellant manager is a minority educational institution entitled to protection under Art.30(1) of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel brought to our notice the fact that it was one PJ. Thomas who effected the purchase of the land for the school as per Ext. P5 sale deed and the school in question after its construction by the aforesaid Thomas was managed strictly in accordance with Christian tenets and discipline. He has a further contention